[crizzlenizzle]

> Disable IPv6: this approach relies on ARP, which IPv6 doesn't use

I wish more people would care about IPv6.

[MrFoof]

Especially when the reality is… you can almost go IPv6 only nowadays if you wanted to.

I went down the rabbit hole recently, switching my network to IPv6 primary with IPv4 as the fallback. The ultimate test was disabling IPv4 for a weekend to see what, if anything, broke.

I had set up DNS64, NAT64 and 464XLAT. The only weirdness is how Windows clients handle IPv6 literals in UNC paths, which is super ugly, and how some applications (like Discord calls) will actually embed IPv4 literals. Discord apparently does that for the relay servers for calls.

Those things — and the rare website not supporting it - aside, I could actually be IPv6 only. I have IPv4 enabled as a fallback now, but it’s no longer primary on my network.

[ninkendo]

464XLAT should work fine with ipv4 literals, no? At least on macOS, this will get routed to a local 192.0.0.2 interface, which does the CLAT, translates it to an ipv6 64:ff9b::<ipv4> address, and relays it to your nat64 server. The ipv4-only software doesn't know any different, and the only traffic going on your LAN is ipv6.

I'm not sure if windows works the same way though...

(Edit: Looks like windows can do this, but it only configures it for WWAN interfaces, go figure: https://techcommunity.microsoft.com/t5/windows-os-platform/c...)

[kube-system]

> you can almost go IPv6 only nowadays if you wanted to.

I think that is the reason why many aren't enthusiastic about it.

[JustSomeNobody]

I wish ISPs would care. CGNAT sucks.

[heywire]

I’m behind CGNAT for the last 1.5 years without issue. What am I missing? I actually prefer my router not being bombarded by connection attempts all day.

[xyst]

Especially when NDP covers all of the features of ARP

[j16sdiz]

> Especially when NDP covers all of the features of ARP

... and more.

and lots of options with varies level of support. Too many switch and flags to fiddle with.

Someone in IEEE need to publish a Current Best Pratice list and deprecate all other options.

[jonathantf2]

I wish I could care about IPv6 but I've never used it, my ISP doesn't provide it and I've never once seen it deployed in a business environment

[zbrozek]

Seems unlikely. The world has made its peace with NAT, and IPv4 is simpler and therefore easier to understand. IPv6 isn't happening.

[2bluesc]

Roughly 40% (and rising) of Google users use IPv6.

https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html

[slashdev]

Or is it just happening extremely slowly? I don't think we can count IPv6 out yet.

[samdcbu]

The increasing prices of IPv4 address blocks will probably drive adoption of IPv6. The increased complexity will be outweighed by the elimination of scarcity that IPv6 brings. If we are still using IPv4 in 2100 that would be tragic. IPv4 block pricing: https://ipv4marketgroup.com/ipv4-pricing/

[slashdev]

Who cares about IPv6 on a home server that you might not even want to expose to the public internet anyway?

[miyuru]

I care. My ISP is deploying IPv6 only and with NAT64 translation and some of my servers hosted elsewhere does not even have public IPv4 to SSH.

[ale42]

I do (and I guess I'm not alone...) -- have IPv6 exposed machines over a HE.net tunnel. Some of the things are ONLY accessible over IPv6 (because nobody needs them over IPv4, so that's enough).

[ale42]

I came on the comment page just to write the same.